Abdul Baqi v. Attaullah,
Bench: Ghulam Mustafa Mengal
📝 AI Summary — Plain-Language Overview
This case involved a property dispute in Quetta, Pakistan. Abdul Baqi claimed he owned a piece of land that he had purchased in 1997 and had been in possession of since then. He alleged that Attaullah had illegally occupied his plot, so he filed a criminal complaint against him under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, a law meant to protect people from being forcibly thrown out of property they possess.
The trial court examined the evidence, including witness testimony from both sides, and found that Attaullah was not actually in possession of the disputed plot. Instead, a house on the land was occupied by a different man, Noor Muhammad, who had lived there for fifteen years but was never made a party to the complaint. Because of this, the trial court dismissed the complaint and acquitted Attaullah.
Abdul Baqi appealed to the Balochistan High Court, arguing the evidence had been misread and that he should have been allowed to add Noor Muhammad as a respondent. The High Court disagreed. It held that since Attaullah was not in possession of the property, there was no question of him dispossessing or ousting Abdul Baqi, meaning the Illegal Dispossession Act simply did not apply. The court found this was really a civil property dispute, not a criminal matter, and upheld the acquittal, dismissing the appeal. This case illustrates that criminal dispossession laws cannot be used as a shortcut to resolve ordinary civil ownership or possession disputes, and that the person actually in possession must be properly named in such complaints
یہ مقدمہ کوئٹہ، پاکستان میں جائیداد کے ایک تنازعے سے متعلق تھا۔ عبدالباقی کا دعویٰ تھا کہ وہ ایک زمین کے مالک ہیں جو انہوں نے 1997 میں خریدی تھی اور تب سے اس پر ان کا قبضہ چلا آ رہا تھا۔ ان کا الزام تھا کہ عطاء اللہ نے ان کے پلاٹ پر غیر قانونی طور پر قبضہ کر لیا ہے، چنانچہ انہوں نے غیر قانونی بے دخلی ایکٹ 2005 کے تحت اس کے خلاف فوجداری شکایت درج کروائی۔ یہ قانون دراصل لوگوں کو ان کے زیرِ قبضہ جائیداد سے زبردستی بے دخل کیے جانے سے بچانے کے لیے بنایا گیا ہے۔
ٹرائل کورٹ نے دونوں فریقین کی جانب سے پیش کیے گئے شواہد اور گواہوں کے بیانات کا جائزہ لیا اور یہ نتیجہ اخذ کیا کہ عطاء اللہ دراصل متنازعہ پلاٹ پر قابض ہی نہیں تھا۔ بلکہ اس زمین پر بنا ایک مکان ایک دوسرے شخص، نور محمد کے قبضے میں تھا، جو پندرہ سال سے وہاں مقیم تھا مگر اسے کبھی بھی شکایت میں فریق نہیں بنایا گیا۔ اسی بنا پر ٹرائل کور
Generated from the full judgment text below — not a substitute for reading the actual opinion.
2013 P Cr. L J 787
[Balochistan]
Before Jamal Khan Mandokhail and Ghulam Mustafa Mengal, JJ
ABDUL BAQI ---Appella nt
Versus
ATTAULLAH and 2 others ---Respondents
Criminal Acquittal Appeal No. 141 of 2012, decided on 23rd January, 2013.
Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) ---
----S. 3---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2) ---Prevention of i llegal possession of property ---Appeal against acquittal ---Appreciation of evidence ---Trial Court dismissed complaint filed against the accused under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 ---Validity --- Dispute was purely of civil nature ---Record showed that a ccused was not in possession or occupation of disputed property, therefore, no question of dispossession or ejectment or ouster of complainant from the disputed property arose ---Record further showed that a house had been built on disputed property and it was in possession of a person, who had been residing therein for the last fifteen years ---Said person was not a party in the complaint filed against the accused --- Provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 were not applicable in such circumstances ---Trial Court was justified in acquitting the accused ---Appeal against acquittal of accused was dismissed accordingly.
Behlol Khan Kasi for Appellant.
Date of hearing: 22nd November, 2012.
ORDER
GHULAM MUSTAFA MENGAL, J. ---This Criminal Acquittal Ap peal under section 417(2), Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31st March, 2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge -II Quetta, whereby the complainant under sections 3 and 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 filed by the appellant has been dismissed and the accused/respondent No.1 has been acquitted of the charge.
2. Briefly, the appellant filed a complaint under sections 3, 4 of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 against the respondent No.1. In the said complaint, the appellant claimed to be recorded owner of land bearing Mutation No.2735, Khasra Nos.3834, 3930, 1185, 1044 and 1045, measuring 791 sq. ft. situated in Mohal and Mouza Ward No.57, Tappa Urban Tehsil City, District Quetta, which he had purchas ed from one Malik Muhammad Hashim son of Haji Ghulam Sarwar in the year 1997. According to the complainant/appellant he was in possession of the same since the time of its purchase. However, a week back when he went to site of the plot he found that the re spondent No.1 is in its illegal occupation.
3. After filing of complaint the learned trial Court sent for a report from SHO Police Station, Pashtoonabad, Quetta. After getting report from respondent No.2, respondent No.1 was summoned and on his appearanc e charge was framed on 20th July, 2009 to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial of the case.
4. To prove his case the complainant produced as many as two witnesses namely Allauddin (P.W.1) and Haji Abdul Baqi (P.W.2). After recording the stat ement of complainant, prosecution side was closed and statement of respondent No.1 was recorded under section 342, Cr.P.C. The respondent No. 1 produced D.W. Noor Muhammad in his defence.
5. The learned trial Court after assessing the entire evidence, on corning to the conclusion that the complainant has failed to prove its case against the respondent No.1 and acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 vide order dated 31st March, 2012, hence this appeal.
6. Mr. Behlol Khan Kasi, learned counsel for the appellant/ complainant submitted that the learned trial Court has misread the evidence of complainant' witnesses and wrongly acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 from the charge. He further submitted that the learned trial Court has not provided opportunity to implead the Noor Muhammad paternal uncle of the Attaullah (respondent No.1) as respondent.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and have gone through the record, perusal of the record reveals that the dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and accused/respondent No.1 is not in occupation or possession of the plot in question, therefore, no question of his dispossession or ejectment or ouster from the plot would rise. The record further shows th at paka house is constructed on the plot in question and is in occupation of one Noor Muhammad. He is residing in the said house for the last fifteen years, who is not party in the complaint, which is purely a civil nature and the provisions of Illegal Dis possession Act are not applicable in this case. The learned trial Court has advanced valid and cogent reasons in passing of the acquittal of the accused/respondent No.1 and we see no reason to disturb the same and the learned trial Court was justified in a cquitting the respondent No.1 therefore, the impugned order call for no interference.
8. Resultantly, this appeal is dismissed and the impugned order dated 31st March, 2012 passed by Additional Sessions Judge -II is maintained accordingly.
MWA/29/Q Appeal dismissed.